Jets/Farve-Sued For Sexual Harassment But Not By Sterger

harrisonhits

NFL Can GFY
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
8,812
Reaction score
180
Points
63
And the hits just keep on comin' !

Edit: We may need a new "Tabloid" forum if this sh*t keeps up.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Favre, Jets sued for sexual harassment, but not by Sterger

Posted by Mike Florio on January 3, 2011, 6:24 PM EST

And now we know why the two massage therapists who claim that former Jets quarterback Brett Favre subjected them to unwelcome advances opted not to cooperate with the NFL’s investigation.

They chose silence because they were planning to sue Favre.

Andrea Canning and Jessica Hopper of ABC’s Good Morning America reports that Christina Scavo and Shannon O’Toole have filed suit against Favre, the Jets, and Lisa Ripi, the woman who supposedly hires massage therapists for the team. The suit has been filed in New York state court.

Scavo contends that Favre treated her like a “hanging slab of meat,” and that Favre wanted to have a three-way with Scavo and another therapist.

Favre allegedly sent text messages to the other therapist, who is unnamed, inviting the other therapist and Scavo to “get together” because he was “all alone.” In another message, he allegedly said, “Kinda lonely tonight. I guess I have bad intentions.” (If that’s all he ever did, that’s not sexual harassment.)

Scavo alleges that her husband demanded an apology from Favre, who “responded in an appropriate manner and refused.” (It’s not sexual harassment to refuse to apologize for something that someone thinks may have been sexual harassment.)

Scavo also alleges that neither Scavo nor O’Toole received work opportunities with the Jets again. (That could be a problem for the defendants, especially if Favre’s reaction to the demand for an apology was to insist on Scavo and O’Toole never again being asked to work for the team.)

Attorney Elizabeth Eilender, who represents the two women, offered up some strong rhetoric in a statement to ABC: “I suspect that this case is only the tip of the iceberg with respect to the harassment and discrimination experienced by women working for NFL teams and their players as well as all of men’s professional sports. I hope that Ms. Scavo’s and Ms. O’Toole’s courage to bring this suit will empower other women to come forward without fear of retaliation and retribution in order to protect their livelihoods and self-respect.”

Eilender told ABC that suit was filed only after the Jets refused to give them their jobs back, but that doesn’t really mesh with the time line. By all appearances, the situation was a dead issue until the Jenn Sterger story hit Deadspin, prompting Scavo’s husband to contact the media in early October. At the time, they had not hired a lawyer, so the filing of the lawsuit wasn’t some final act in a carefully-engineered two-year strategy.

Instead, our somewhat educated guess is that the massage therapists got “lawyered up” not long after the Sterger situation emerged, that they decided not to talk to the NFL because anything they said to the NFL could and would have been used against them in the litigation, and they decided to sue, perhaps after demanding a settlement from Favre and/or the Jets.

On the surface, we don’t see enough to make us think that sexual harassment occurred. It’s possible that the stronger claim is against Favre, the Jets, and/or Ripi for freezing them out after Scavo’s husband confronted Favre.

Either way, Favre’s third retirement from the NFL won’t be starting out as smoothly as he surely hoped.
 
(If that’s all he ever did, that’s not sexual harassment.)

Not sure who put the comments in parenthesis, but every place I've worked has defined sexual harassment pretty much the same way.

If the behavior/statement is not desired or considered inappropriate by the woman, it is harassment, period.

It doesn't matter what you may have meant or intended, it if is viewed that way by the other person, you're in deep doo doo.
 
I got to "Farve wanted a 3-way" and quit reading.

Lol, they should hire dudes. Then laugh at the players when "it" moves ROFL
 
Good Lord, will the comedy ever end? I hope not...... ROFL
 
Quote from Jets Insider:

"Ho Hum...Distraction of the Weak "

The spelling error adds to the humor, no?
 
<<
"big ones," remember?
>>

If only Farve would take his tiny penis and disappear into the sunset never to be seen again ROFL

I keep thinking that there could sooooooo be a South Park episode in this Farve and Rexy shenanigans......
 
<<
"big ones," remember?
>>

If only Farve would take his tiny penis and disappear into the sunset never to be seen again ROFL

I keep thinking that there could sooooooo be a South Park episode in this Farve and Rexy shenanigans......
Bang is really letting too many things slide this season.
 
Ah yes. Maybe he could inflate it with his ego?

:coffee:
mstballoon.jpg
 
(If that’s all he ever did, that’s not sexual harassment.)

Not sure who put the comments in parenthesis, but every place I've worked has defined sexual harassment pretty much the same way.

If the behavior/statement is not desired or considered inappropriate by the woman, it is harassment, period.

It doesn't matter what you may have meant or intended, it if is viewed that way by the other person, you're in deep doo doo.

Depends. As a defender of harassment lawsuits, I can say that your definition was correct (the EEOC definition uses the word "unwelcome"). Now, without seeing the Complaint or what exactly is alleged outside of glancing at that article, the case against Favre seems weak. His conduct doesn't appear to be unlawful, because he was not in a position to affect their employment.

Unless there is a pattern of behavior exhibited after he was put on notice that his conduct was unwelcome, or it was so egregious as to be naturally offensive (and not being privvy to the facts and going by what I've seen in NFL locker rooms, this is a possibility) the underlying discrimination/harassment claim isn't very strong. Now retaliation...that one may have some legs. Bad decision-making by the Jets if they had knowledge of the women's objections to Favre's advances and denied them further employment accordingly.

I'm sure the Complaint will make the Smoking Gun or some other site and we'll know more about the legal relief sought.
 
(If that’s all he ever did, that’s not sexual harassment.)

Not sure who put the comments in parenthesis, but every place I've worked has defined sexual harassment pretty much the same way.

If the behavior/statement is not desired or considered inappropriate by the woman, it is harassment, period.

It doesn't matter what you may have meant or intended, it if is viewed that way by the other person, you're in deep doo doo.
They need better workplace harassment training where you work. As a supervisor I attended many sexual harassment training classes and the above is wrong (though a common view of the laws/rules by a lot of men who are genuinely do not want to, and are afraid of, unintentionally insulting a woman).

The victim (not the woman but the victim - sex is irrelevant for either victim or perpretator) is not the sole judge. For it to be harassment, it must be seen as such by an reasonable person, not the victim. In the case of a law suit, the judge must see it as harassment. Just because a person sees it as harassment or makes them uncomfortable doesn't make it so.

On the flip side, there are many things that do not seem like harassment that might cause a person (man or woman) to feel uncomfortable. If something you say or do makes him/her feel uncomfortable but might not make most people uncomfortable, he/she must tell you they doesn't like or want it. Then you must stop or face the doo doo storm. As long as you don't hold power over her in the workplace, it's okay to ask a woman or a man out, for instance, but if she says "No, and stop asking me because it makes me feel uncomfortable," then it is harassment if you continue. But not for asking for a date. (Special rules apply for boss-employees. If you supervise people of the opposite sex, you rightfully have very little leeway as you have power over that person.)

Favre's case is interesting because he wasn't their employer, the Jests were. If the women were fired because he asked for them to be fired, it is the Jets' cupability, not Favre's. He can say, "I want them fired because they didn't ... whatever" if he wants. The Jets, as employer, must say, "No, that is not cause for firing and you stop this."

But whatever, it is bad publicity for the Jets and Favre, so it's all good, and if the women really were fired without cause I hope they all get huge settlements.
 
They need better workplace harassment training where you work. As a supervisor I attended many sexual harassment training classes and the above is wrong (though a common view of the laws/rules by a lot of men who are genuinely do not want to, and are afraid of, unintentionally insulting a woman).

I think he was agreeing with you.

The victim (not the woman but the victim - sex is irrelevant for either victim or perpretator) is not the sole judge. For it to be harassment, it must be seen as such by an reasonable person, not the victim. In the case of a law suit, the judge must see it as harassment. Just because a person sees it as harassment or makes them uncomfortable doesn't make it so.

Not necessarily true. The courts have used both objective and subjective standards. For the most part, to succeed, a plaintiff will have to satisfy both (it's not merely OK that the behavior meets the objective standard, but also the plaintiff also objected to the behavior- maybe semantics, but still a requirement). The EEOC adopts the reasonable person standard, but in reality if the charging party objects to the behavior, they will initiate the claim. Different jurisdictions have allowed subjective tests as well for this type of claim.

On the flip side, there are many things that do not seem like harassment that might cause a person (man or woman) to feel uncomfortable. If something you say or do makes him/her feel uncomfortable but might not make most people uncomfortable, he/she must tell you they doesn't like or want it. Then you must stop or face the doo doo storm. As long as you don't hold power over her in the workplace, it's okay to ask a woman or a man out, for instance, but if she says "No, and stop asking me because it makes me feel uncomfortable," then it is harassment if you continue. But not for asking for a date. (Special rules apply for boss-employees. If you supervise people of the opposite sex, you rightfully have very little leeway as you have power over that person.)

Your company has done a good job training you. It's not unlawful for supervisor-subordinate relationships, BTW, but they are nothing but trouble.

Favre's case is interesting because he wasn't their employer, the Jests were. If the women were fired because he asked for them to be fired, it is the Jets' cupability, not Favre's. He can say, "I want them fired because they didn't ... whatever" if he wants. The Jets, as employer, must say, "No, that is not cause for firing and you stop this."

But whatever, it is bad publicity for the Jets and Favre, so it's all good, and if the women really were fired without cause I hope they all get huge settlements.

What I'm interested to see is whether Favre is imputed as the employer because of the influence he yields. I've seen similar cases with high-profile salespeople in large organizations. A multi-million dollar salesman says/does inappropriate things to an admin who refuses his advances, he says she needs to go and she is fired. She never made a complaint against him, but both claims survive because authority can be imputed to him through the position and value he has within the organization. The claims survive summary judgment and become jury questions.

The NFL may have something in the union contract as well for these types of issues.
 
A couple chicks pinched my ass 20 years ago at Kodak....Can I retro sue them? Nothing more than a quick money grab attempt. Money grubbing whores.

Not crazy about Favre, but this is where you kinda feel sorry for pro atheletes or celebs, as anyone is out to make a buck off of what is considered petty in the real world....Money grubbing lawyers tooo, fark em all!
 
<<
"big ones," remember?
>>

If only Farve would take his tiny penis and disappear into the sunset never to be seen again ROFL

I keep thinking that there could sooooooo be a South Park episode in this Farve and Rexy shenanigans......


It all makes prefect sense now..Favre was always trying to compensate.
 
The most laughable part to me is these girls say they were harassed by Favre over the phone and via text, yet how did he get their phone numbers? Obviously they gave him their cell numbers.
 
A couple chicks pinched my ass 20 years ago at Kodak....Can I retro sue them? Nothing more than a quick money grab attempt. Money grubbing whores.

Not crazy about Favre, but this is where you kinda feel sorry for pro atheletes or celebs, as anyone is out to make a buck off of what is considered petty in the real world....Money grubbing lawyers tooo, fark em all!

Statute of Limitations, Broseph. Hopefully you were made whole by a little quid pro quo?
 
Back
Top